IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Fwd: Initial suggestion from the IETF SAA

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 06 April 2021 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2027B3A256D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.079
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uzG8jdlxf22b for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 515B63A2569 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 08:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Zephyrus.local (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 136FQdHT047686 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Apr 2021 10:26:40 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1617722800; bh=nkkM1D5NsB2NEzIksMO1/jhKj9SXit/t9G/TcuzrCsA=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=DTq3TtHfgiA6B98wE0lNKVOsqAujCdsuEr7/h9jjQZ0Mp72+GSZ4a8T2jxpPSLi5U ToBimKzJEUIZCeaB8X7zpIyvCORSiXIejtayNoXa96KQRlU2EnzpIVtVQgLuuoLUQi FPT9wiVPZX+28mu7U3umsPFovvfr+Kzju++hOHp0=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be Zephyrus.local
Subject: Re: Fwd: Initial suggestion from the IETF SAA
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <e8155935-e85d-6f36-4b0e-e311ff1a181a@ietf.org> <d3e27fcc-2851-b14e-d991-50818ff23d43@ietf.org> <6ddb6f92-0cb1-5118-1f4c-7dc86d68359a@network-heretics.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <4a88da8c-eddc-d00c-79ef-fe537702f1d7@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 10:26:34 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6ddb6f92-0cb1-5118-1f4c-7dc86d68359a@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9F638906681C6CFE66613B49"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jOFLjAJ_gP8ggQuMgyyPvgV0g5w>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 15:26:47 -0000

On 4/6/21 09:42, Keith Moore wrote:
> Put please don't use the word "unprofessional"...


If you'd like to change this, I suggest you put forth an RFC 3005-bis 
document and bring it to GENDISPATCH to see if you can gauge whether 
consensus has changed since it was published. Quoting:


>     Inappropriate postings include:
>
> ...
>      - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject


The SAA team is established by that IETF consensus document and their 
actions are both defined and constrained by it. It's fine to express 
opinions in the rough, but you can't expect a change in process unless 
you formally demonstrate that consensus has changed since its publication.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email